I thought that Larry would especially like this comment that I made to the article at WUWT.
What you provided is a computer simulation.
Stephen is correct. Look the the actual data/observations measuring the CO2.
Note in this first image below, the time of year, June of 2015, shortly before the Summer Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere and the point where the sun is very close to the farthest north that it will be all year and the highest angle in the sky, that warms the oceans the most at a point which is as far north as it will get in the year.....NORTH of the equator.
In June 2015, you can see the higher band of CO2 extending across the entire planet, even in places with no industry or man made CO2 emissions....NORTH of the equator:
Note the 2nd image below was from October/early November 2014, 5 months later in solar calendar year(the previous year) with the most powerful sun, now aimed much farther south in the southern hemisphere. The band of higher CO2 that extends across the entire globe is now seen to have shifted, exactly with the sun angle(which is heating the oceans below and maximizing out gassing of CO2). The band extends across areas that have no industry or extensive human caused CO2 emissions and the band is now SOUTH or the equator:"
The point of this is that when a fluid that has CO2 dissolved it warms up, the CO2 comes out faster. The CO2 in your beverage will come out faster when the beverage is warm vs cold.
The oceans have massive amounts of natural CO2 in them. Much more than humans are emitting. In the past, the ocean temperatures went up first, along with them heating the atmosphere............ THEN the CO2 went up because the warmer oceans out gassed CO2 into the atmosphere.
Some of that is happening now on top of the greenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere from the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
During El Nino's, which is a warming of the S.Pacific which warms the planet, the atmospheric CO2 goes up a little bit faster then. When the global temperature is flat or cooling a bit temporarily, the rate of increase in CO2 is not quite as fast.
So some of this increasing CO2 is coming from the oceans losing CO2 because they are warmer. This might be a positive feedback or maybe it tells us that this warming of the oceans during the Grand Solar Max last century, added a bunch of heat to the oceans, which outgassed alot more CO2 into the atmosphere that added more to the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Regardless, these 2 images show the irrefutable out gassing effect from the stronger sun and warmer oceans below it.
So when the oceans warm, as they have in the last 100 years, they give up more CO2 into the atmosphere. The current atmospheric level of 411 parts per million, would certainly be under 400, if we cooled the oceans back down to the temperature they were at a century ago.
Another comment to somebody from that same article about their claim that increasing CO2 is causing food to have less nutrients based on the studies at the links below. One of the studies makes this claim:
"The researchers also emphasized that billions of people currently living with nutritional deficiencies would likely see their conditions worsen as a result of less nutritious crops."
Since you asked so nicely:
You are welcome.
Common sense tells one that having 30% more of something that is slightly lower in a few micro nutrients by 7-15% means you still have more of everything, including those micro nutrients.
Let’s say you had $10,000 in money with a specifically determined ratio of pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters, dollars, $5, $10 and $20 bills. Then, I offered you 30% more money to replace it, $13,000, along with the same ratio of currency/coins…….except that there was 7% less pennies with the $13,000. You would still have more pennies than you did with your original $10,000……… + the additional amounts of everything else would be up even more than that.
The other thing they don’t address(which is a big reason for this) is the fact that bigger yields for whatever the reason(from good weather that we’ve experienced during this climate optimum, improved hybrids or additional fertilizer, whether its CO2 or Nitrogen) results in the crops with a higher uptake of micro nutrients from the soil…….so the soil becomes deficient of these micro nutrients. Farmers, need to address this by adding micro nutrients to the soil.
The solution is not to have smaller yields and lower food production so that our crops have higher micro nutrients. The answer is to use science and technology to amend the soil in order to replace what becomes deficient.
CO2 is a powerful fertilizer, just like Nitrogen in the soil is for corn. Besides managing soil nutrients, we will continue to genetically modify plants to cultivate hybrids with better nutritional content. That’s how science works.
Again, studies that tell us that the solution is to have lower yields and less food production so that the smaller crops, which feed less people will have more micro nutrients are ludicrous and clearly aimed at targeting increasing CO2 as doing the complete opposite of what it’s really doing…………..which is MAXIMIZING a plants potential.
Mike, fascinating stuff! I wasn’t aware that warmer oceans emit back more CO2 into the air, which leads to even more warming. Seems like a vicious cycle. So, like you said, if the oceans were to cool, there could even be at least a temporary drop in CO2 in the air even without reducing human caused CO2 emissions!
Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening from increased CO2 then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air by the increased number and size of plants/trees? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?
By the way, who is this “Jack”? He seemed to be in opposition to almost everyone in the comments section! Jack against the world! Where the heck are Jack’s supporters? I realize a site like WUWT is not going to attract many Jacks, but I figured more than one Jack. Actually, I literally remembered only one other post in the 175 or so agreeing with Jack!
I don't go to alot of places like that or other forums, blog sites but just judging from my last year as moderator here and what I have observed, people like to only go to places where everybody agrees with them, especially when it comes to politics.
At those sites, you will often have a few that disagree but some don't come to have intelligent discourse but come to disrupt those that they disagree with..........trolls.
They post obsessively, without it contributing anything to the discussion except to tear it down with nonsense.
At MarketForum, I was committed to us having both sides with equal representation, as much as possible even if I had to make exceptions for some continual rule breaking and trolling by certain individuals for the first 8 months after I took over.
After Kate McCallum disappeared 8 months ago and I haven't heard a word from her and has completely ignored the terms of our agreement now for the 14th month in a row, I decided I wasn't going to be moderator of a forum that featured 65% mindless Trump bashing, name calling/attacking and resulted in a product that is ANTI-met.mike in his real life.
I gave the offenders numerous chances to change. They didn't and they are gone and we are left with 3 less posters and less reason for others to respond to their incessant trolling, less posting but have minimized the hate and battles that always defined the NTR forum before.
I would do anything to bring more liberal contributors in. Carl is probably the smartest man here and what used to be called liberal. Lar comes and goes and is always very welcome. Cliff is our resident, sometimes troll always Trump hater but he is a farmer that contributes to trading posts and I will always overlook some of his inflammatory stuff. Joj posts some good stuff............actually we do have some good libs but the ones that were doing all the posting couldn't do respectful posting.
In this current time, it seems like its now almost impossible for people that disagree strongly on political issues to have good conversations without feelings being hurt. Many people really, really take this for Trump or against Trump position very personal.
And its not surprising because the messages we are getting from our news sources, politicians and from Trump are extremely divisive. If you are aligned with one side, you are pulled to an extreme. The people that belong to the extreme ends far out number the ones in the middle(as defined by the middle a couple of decades ago). MarketForum is not isolated from the world and some of that will be pulled in here.............but I will be vigilant to minimize it from becoming too offensive to posters. Please let me know if I'm neglecting that commitment at any time.
I am expanding our exposure on facebook and twitter but can't spend even more time doing this when the person that I agreed to do this for has violated the terms of our agreement and has not answered 25 emails in a row.
My wife is furious with me for getting taken advantage of. However, I am not one to give up hope easily. My objective is for MarketForum to be something that makes the world a better place for people reading and interacting here. We do have thousands of lurkers believe it or not. If they learn a few things or get a few positive messages it's worth it to me.
I also have hopes of trying to use it to raise funds for a charity that my nephew runs for poor children in Guatemala.
I still hope that Kate responds. If she does, I will have be overjoyed and will erase this post so there isn't anything negative about our relationship here. However, I'm just being transparent about my current position as moderator at this time.